In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right to freedom of speech and expression, reaffirming the protection of journalists under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court granted protection to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, halting coercive actions in response to an FIR filed against him for publishing an article critical of government officials in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The decision came during the hearing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 402 of 2024, in which the petitioner, Abhishek Upadhyay, sought relief from an FIR (No. 265 of 2024) that had been registered following the publication of his article. The article, posted on the platform X (formerly Twitter), was accused of containing a “casteist tilt” against officers holding important positions in the state administration.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. Representing the petitioner was Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, who argued that no criminal offense could be made out from the contents of the article. He stressed that the FIR filed against Upadhyay was unwarranted and represented an attempt to silence legitimate criticism of the government.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, accepted a submission made by the petitioner’s counsel to remove the second respondent from the case, streamlining the matter against the State of Uttar Pradesh alone.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in the case revolved around the balance between a journalist’s right to free speech and the state’s authority to regulate content that it deems offensive or unlawful. The petitioner argued that the article was an exercise of his fundamental right to free speech, as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner’s counsel further expressed concerns that the publication of the article on social media might lead to multiple FIRs being filed against Upadhyay across different jurisdictions, thus creating a chilling effect on press freedom.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The bench made critical observations on the misuse of legal provisions to suppress journalistic freedom, stating:
“In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views are respected. The rights of journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer.”
The Court emphasized that the mere perception of an article as criticism of government officers does not warrant criminal proceedings against the journalist. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that dissent and criticism, even of government officials, is an essential feature of democracy, and journalists must not be penalized for their work unless a clear violation of law is established.
In a temporary but crucial measure, the Court issued a stay on any coercive steps being taken against Upadhyay in connection with the FIR, while directing the issuance of a notice to the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The matter is set to return to court in four weeks, with the standing counsel expected to respond to the notice. The Court also allowed the petitioner to serve a dasti notice (direct notice) to the state’s counsel.
